Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Not sure if it's like this everywhere, but in AZ some booths at gun shows are private sales (no paperwork signs even) while others are FFL sellers that will require the 4473.

A gun show is just the name of an event. It could be called a birthday party, a meeting, a get together or simply have people over your house.

A gun show is very simply that. FFLs can go, private sellers can go, etc.
No different than meeting in a parking lot. FFLs require a NICS checks under federal law in most circumstances because the doucher Brady act. Depending on state law, private sales may not require anything more than a handshake.

The media has convinced stupid people that a gun show is something evil or complex

A gun show is just the name of an event. It could be called a birthday party, a meeting, a get together or simply have people over your house.

A gun show is very simply that. FFLs can go, private sellers can go, etc.
No different than meeting in a parking lot. FFLs require a NICS checks under federal law in most circumstances because the doucher Brady act. Depending on state law, private sales may not require anything more than a handshake.

The media has convinced stupid people that a gun show is something evil or complex

I've only been to gun shows in AZ and NV so I wasn't sure if the private/FFL thing was common or if some states some how had magic laws requiring only FFLs at gun shows.

I've only been to gun shows in AZ and NV so I wasn't sure if the private/FFL thing was common or if some states some how had magic laws requiring only FFLs at gun shows.

In Florida (at least the shows that I've been to) the shows are typically a mixture of dealers and private tables. Anyone can sell at the show as long as they pay the $65 table fee. There are usually signs on the table that clearly state that it's a private sale, and then no background check is required. It's very common to see people walking around with a rifle slung over their shoulder or a backpack full of guns with a sign around their neck stating what they have for sale and prices.

most of the shows I've been to here are majority FFLs, with a few (two or three) private seller tables. And then there's always people walking around with a slung rifle or two with big "ask me about buying this" sign.

There would be a boatload less crime if everyone walked around armed (think about it) (I mean really think about it: Don't just dismiss it as crazy.

Depends on what kind of crime, no? Less theft? Even break-ins? If everyone carried and you knew that someone was just after $100 worth of stuff and not out to kill you, would you really kill them? There certainly wouldn't be any disincentive for drug related crimes. What about rape, JJ's favorite example? If the victim and the rapist are armed, the rapist is stronger and has the element of surprise... what good is a weapon? At least for the victim. The rapist might have some use for it, though.

I guess I don't see the deterrent factor quite as clearly, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoogetyBoogety

Think about a world in which everyone was more-than-likely armed, and what that would do to criminals) (someone always pops up at this time and says, "then criminals would shoot to kill first instead of pointing a gun threateningly." But that would be slow suicide: You would inevitably be caught and executed shortly thereafter, so no. It's MAD [Mutually-Assured Destruction] on a local level, instead of a tacit understanding between nations).

Inevitably? But criminals already suffer from the "they won't get me" mentality, even though one would think statistics would have taught them otherwise. What's to change?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoogetyBoogety

The opposite is also true: There would be a lot less crime if everyone was unarmed. But they're not, it's too late for that, and therefore, everyone should be able, and encouraged, to carry.

I'm all for gun rights. I just think there needs to be a bit of self-control and a bit of imposed control. A bit of balance. I appreciate this sort of answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

Not many.

Which ones? What kind of laws would you impose on gun ownership/sales?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

There are certain federal and state disqualifies for owning firearms. I don't believe drug charges should be one of them, nor do I feel things like PFA (restraining orders) or 302's (mental admissions) should either.

So a drug dealer should be free to own as many guns as he wants?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

If an estranged husband will ignore an imaginary line of 200ft (LOL) around his wife... he'll ignore any law that says he can't own a firearm or kill her.

Breaking an imaginary boundary =/= mindset required for killing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

Simply not effective there. PFA's are many times granted to PSYCHO women that make up abuse stories or lie about something their husband did in retaliation for not getting new shoes or perhaps he was cheating on the stupid bish.

Jeez, JJ. Presumptive, aren't we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

No... people should not have mental evaluations before purchase. The whole assumed innocent thing and invasion of privacy. As far as felons?
If someone is convicted of a crime... and serves their time... they should have ALL RIGHTS reinstated once released. If they are still deemed a risk to society or not trusted with a gun, THEY SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED, PERIOD. If someone is released and deemed ready for society, all rights restored.

Because you trust the system so much. People go to prisons where guards belong to the same gangs as they do. They come out worse, but supposedly rehabilitated. Sure, give them guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wraisil

I'll try to make this simple: without good reason to believe it would be illegal for the other person to buy your gun or that they were planning to use it for an illegal purpose, then it should be legal to sell it to them.

Good reason? Skin color?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

If you walked in on someone raping and stabbing your wife or someone pulled up to your child in a van and started to kidnap them or someone grabbed you on the street and put a gun to your head, you could never bring yourself to shoot them?

Imagine you walked in on someone and they are using your baby as a condom to rape your wife with after having beaten her with your puppy. Oh, yeah... they also keyed your car!

JJ with the horror stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reedo302

People with depression, anxiety disorders, schizo-affective disorder, ADD, ADHD, borderline personality disorder, sociopaths and narcissism may all still qualify for gun ownership. The caveat is in relation to severity and the impact that their level of mental illness/disorder has affected themselves or the public around them. One might argue the someone with depression shouldn't buy a gun, but on the same token, they're not typically a danger to others. People with extreme narcissism or sociopathy should not be allowed to buy guns due to many extensive problems, but they may never go into the mental health system and can therefore pass muster.

I'm willing to bet that most people with mental problems never go into the mental health system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reedo302

Subject 1: Thought there were demons in her house, so she set her townhome on fire at 3am. The townhome was connected to three other units. We got everyone evacuated and threw her in the back of a squad car. She was subsequently committed to the state Security Hospital for indefinite term. Can't buy a gun.

Subject 2: No confirmed mental illness, but constantly calls us to report various conspiracies about the nurses union stalking her, driving vehicle with one headlight. Every vehicle that she sees with one headlight is a vehicle sent by the local nurse's union to harass and stalk her. They have put listening devices in her walls. Unmarked police cars can't respond to her house because she believes they aren't real cops, and they are sent by the people who are after her. She has never been legally indicated as mentally ill or defective, but if she applied for a MN Permit to Purchase a Handgun (and assault rifle- can't figure out how that is relevant), she would get rejected immediately due to extensive mental health contacts. Last I checked the records have been accessed by the State, and hence would likely be able to retrieved by the FBI during a NICS check. She once asked me about whether I thought she should carry a gun. She then asked where someone can buy a gun. She has no firm plant in reality, and she stated that she would carry a gun without a permit because the nurse's union could get her information if she got a carry permit. The instant she said that, given our history, we immediately notified the State to flag her within our state and federal records.

This. Another disqualifier is domestic violence related convictions.

Thanks for the examples!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serbonze

There are usually signs on the table that clearly state that it's a private sale, and then no background check is required. It's very common to see people walking around with a rifle slung over their shoulder or a backpack full of guns with a sign around their neck stating what they have for sale and prices.

So I could have any kind of criminal and mental health background and I can buy whatever I want as long as I buy from a private party and manage to not kill anyone during the 30 min or so it takes me to walk in and purchase the weapon and leave?

This one still interests me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

Not many.

Which ones? What kind of laws would you impose on gun ownership/sales?

Depends on what kind of crime, no? Less theft? Even break-ins? If everyone carried and you knew that someone was just after $100 worth of stuff and not out to kill you, would you really kill them?

No I wouldn't kill someone who was after any amount of money and I know planned to spare my life.. problem is life isn't a fairy tale and I can't know that. I choose to have SOME say so in the decision.

Depends on what kind of crime, no? Less theft? Even break-ins? If everyone carried and you knew that someone was just after $100 worth of stuff and not out to kill you, would you really kill them? There certainly wouldn't be any disincentive for drug related crimes.

How does one "know" that a person with a gun, robbing you ONLY wants 100 bucks? What guarantee are you speaking of that states cooperating with a violent person robbing you will keep you from being killed regardless if you cooperate or not? What you are basically saying is "Let them rob you and then let them decide if you will live or die". You're putting all the decision making into the hands of a violent criminal.

Here is an example recently near me in Philly. This happens EVERY day. People getting robbed "cooperate" and then get killed. Sorry, but I'll continue to own that choice and take my chances. I'll never cooperate with scum like this.

What about rape, JJ's favorite example? If the victim and the rapist are armed, the rapist is stronger and has the element of surprise... what good is a weapon? At least for the victim. The rapist might have some use for it, though.

What about rape? The law is very clear to me.

Quote:

(2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself/herself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat;

Perhaps your feel the same as Clayton Williams

Quote:

Rape is like bad weather: if it's inevitable, you might as well relax and enjoy it.

Your vision is blurry because you take the side of the criminal over the victim. Predictable. A person defending themselves and putting a bullet into the chest of their attacker killing them is a pretty good deterrent in my book. I wish it happened more. After a while, potential robbers would think twice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'busa

Which ones? What kind of laws would you impose on gun ownership/sales?
So a drug dealer should be free to own as many guns as he wants?

Already answered the first question before
A convicted drug dealer I'll assume you're asking? Yes, once they serve their time and are released, they should have their rights restored. If we fear them so much, that once they are released, we believe they'll cause harm to someone... you don't release them. Pretty simple.

A not-yet-convicted drug dealer? Well.... of course, adding a gun to to commission of any crime like drugs just makes the charges even worse. We already have laws to address that. No problem there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'busa

I'm willing to bet that most people with mental problems never go into the mental health system.

So I could have any kind of criminal and mental health background and I can buy whatever I want as long as I buy from a private party and manage to not kill anyone during the 30 min or so it takes me to walk in and purchase the weapon and leave?

This is true, unless we start having the ability to forcast people actions like the weather with 100% accuracy... we'll never "know" what people are going to do. People with ZERO criminal history and ZERO mental issue history and ZERO signs of violence often snap or just generally decide to commit crimes. I think the answer you're looking for is "assume everyone is unfit" and then "case by case...approve people". It doesnt work nor is it fit our laws and rights. People can walk into a store and buy 100 pounds of fertilzer to blow up a building or buy a knife to stab their mother. can can can if if if...

See my signature. That's my stance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'busa

This one still interests me:

Which ones? What kind of laws would you impose on gun ownership/sales?

How does one "know" that a person with a gun, robbing you ONLY wants 100 bucks? What guarantee are you speaking of that states cooperating with a violent person robbing you will keep you from being killed regardless if you cooperate or not? What you are basically saying is "Let them rob you and then let them decide if you will live or die". You're putting all the decision making into the hands of a violent criminal.

If someone snatches a purse and runs, odds are he's not coming back to kill you. If someone pickpockets you, it's likely he's not to kill you. Actually, odds are always that people are not out to kill you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

Here is an example recently near me in Philly. This happens EVERY day. People getting robbed "cooperate" and then get killed. Sorry, but I'll continue to own that choice and take my chances. I'll never cooperate with scum like this.

Good luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

What about rape? The law is very clear to me.

But are physics and biology clear to you? If someone armed wants to harm someone who is also armed and they have physical strength and the element of surprise in their favor, how helpful is a gun anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

Perhaps your feel the same as Clayton Williams

You should know better than to commit such blatant logical fallacies. Do you feel at such a disadvantage in this discussion that you have to resort to that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

Your vision is blurry because you take the side of the criminal over the victim. Predictable.

Really? Again? How am I taking the side of the criminal? I'm simply saying that your view is unrealistic. All the good folks will be better equipped, better prepared, better trained and in better physical condition than the criminals? They'll have the balls and wherewithal to properly defend themselves in a stressful situation. The criminals will just wait idly while they're being exposed to mortal danger? Sure, JJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

A person defending themselves and putting a bullet into the chest of their attacker killing them is a pretty good deterrent in my book. I wish it happened more. After a while, potential robbers would think twice.

Or just shoot people preemptively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

Already answered the first question before
A convicted drug dealer I'll assume you're asking? Yes, once they serve their time and are released, they should have their rights restored. If we fear them so much, that once they are released, we believe they'll cause harm to someone... you don't release them. Pretty simple.

A not-yet-convicted drug dealer? Well.... of course, adding a gun to to commission of any crime like drugs just makes the charges even worse. We already have laws to address that. No problem there.

For a guy who constantly posts about corrupt cops and bad laws, you have a lot of faith in the system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

This is true, unless we start having the ability to forcast people actions like the weather with 100% accuracy... we'll never "know" what people are going to do. People with ZERO criminal history and ZERO mental issue history and ZERO signs of violence often snap or just generally decide to commit crimes. I think the answer you're looking for is "assume everyone is unfit" and then "case by case...approve people". It doesnt work nor is it fit our laws and rights. People can walk into a store and buy 100 pounds of fertilzer to blow up a building or buy a knife to stab their mother. can can can if if if...

Right. Because 100 pounds of fertilizer can be stuffed in your pocket. Also, knifes are awesome when you want to go on a knifing rampage. Except they're not. I'm not saying that there's a school shooting epidemic. The stats are not that significant and the media coverage is usually disproportionately large, but you can't say that the shootings would have had the same number of dead and injured if the perpetrators had used knives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonJon

Asked and Answered

I'm sorry, I didn't get it. What restrictions would you find reasonable on weapons?

You are correct in that most people with mental illness are undiagnosed, or at the very least, untreated. I don't have the statistics in front of me from NAMI, but it's a pretty significant amount. Many times, those with legitimate mental health issues only go into the system forcibly after medical holds or judicial assignments.

Again, what, if any, restrictions would you find reasonable on weapons?

No weapons to illegal aliens, violent felons, sex offenders, or those of demonstrable mental illness/defect. Other than that, go nuts. Suppressors, machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, all a simple NICS check. No NFA

No weapons to illegal aliens, violent felons, sex offenders, or those of demonstrable mental illness/defect. Other than that, go nuts. Suppressors, machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, all a simple NICS check. No NFA

Still waiting for JJ to answer, but thanks! What about larger weapons? Bombs, grenades, rocket launchers?

Still waiting for JJ to answer, but thanks! What about larger weapons? Bombs, grenades, rocket launchers?

That is a whole different topic. Much of that stuff is restricted from any civilian use because of military application. Law Enforcement can use limited explosives, but there are regulations that outline what can be used and how it must be used. All LE personnel using explosives must meet stringent training standards.
Some explosives have legally made it out to the civilian commercial market in the AOW class, but it's been very limited. There are also explosives available for use with the correct permits for professional use, such as construction, demolition, mining, etc. All that is regulated differently, and it's more similar to restricted chemicals than it is with firearms.

No weapons to illegal aliens, violent felons, sex offenders, or those of demonstrable mental illness/defect. Other than that, go nuts. Suppressors, machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, all a simple NICS check. No NFA

So non-violent felons should be able to have guns but some guy that got charged with a sex crime for public urination shouldn't?